​UK’s impressive innovation record will continue to attract investment

The UK’s success in securing its position as the world’s second-most innovative country in the world for the second year in a row will continue to attract investment in cutting edge research and development, says Karl Barnfather, patent attorney and chairman of intellectual property firm, Withers & Rogers

A global innovation index co-published by Cornell University, INSEAD and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which highlights the role of innovation and IP as a driver of economic growth, has identified the UK as the second-most innovative country. In fact, the UK has risen to second place this year from 10th position in 2011 – a remarkable trajectory which is linked to its performance in five pillars of R&D competence: institutions; human capital and research; infrastructure; market sophistication and business sophistication. The UK’s heritage in the field of R&D in areas such as the oil and gas industry, pharmaceuticals and high-value engineering is world-renowned and this has attracted some of the world’s leading OEMs to locate here. Building on this, the UK’s use of technology clusters to support R&D talent in areas like software design and clean technologies is adding fresh momentum to Britain’s home-grown innovation drive.

According to the report, the most innovative country in the world is Switzerland, followed by the UK, Sweden, Netherlands, USA, Finland, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg and Denmark. A number of low-income economies are also noted among the report’s list of ‘innovation achievers’ – those that outperform their peers for their level of gross domestic product (GDP). In particular, Rwanda, Mozambique and Malawi in Sub-Saharan Africa are performing on a par with middle-income economies in terms of their GDP.

Of course, it’s not just how much innovation that is happening that matters – quality also counts. When it comes to innovation quality, which is measured in the report by university performance, the reach of scholarly articles and the international dimension of patent applications, only a few economies stand out. The US and the UK are leaders, largely as a result of their world-class universities, closely followed by Japan, Germany and Switzerland. Top-scoring middle-income economies on innovation quality are China, Brazil and India, with China increasingly outpacing the others.

While the UK has a strong track record in terms of innovation, it languishes around the 25th position in terms of the value of its GDP per capita and there is definitely a strong case for improvement in the exploitation of our excellent innovation for the common good. In order to become better at commercialising this investment in innovation, it is vital that companies are more proactive about protecting their IP. At the moment, a general lack of engagement with IP, and in particular patent filings, in which the UK ranks only 9th by European patent filings in 2014, arguably is making it harder for the UK economy to profit from its outstanding innovation.

The introduction of the Patent Box in 2013 has gone some way to providing a worthwhile tax incentive for companies that choose to locate their R&D teams in the UK. In addition, recent government proposals to allow more freedom for Research Institutes could support innovation further. If the proposals go ahead it could become easier for Research Institutes to attract and retain talent, invest in cutting edge technology and re-invest commercial income. At the moment, they are often beholden to set annual budgets that they have to spend in order to justify receiving the same amount in the following year. This creates a feast or famine scenario whereby teams constantly have to either attract funding or justify spending. Any measure that helps to break this funding cycle and allow Research Institutes to be more certain about their funding future will be very welcome.

The calibre of the research activity taking place at British universities is also helping to position the UK as the best place to innovate in Europe. It is clear to the world that we have the skills, the people and the track record needed to innovate, encourage entrepreneurialism and greatly help successful commercialisation. We must continue to encourage this and create an innovation culture that understands the value of intellectual property protection in supporting the delivery of exciting technologies.

I have a simple question for Karl Barnfather.
By comparison with those innovative persons for whom his firm ‘acts’- what percentage of revenue- (and hence profit-generating) producing ideas has his firm personally had: and by whom and how much was paid for their introduction and successful implementation. I will hazard a guess. [0]
Mike B

Thank you for your interest in the article Mike. As a patent attorney I am hear to serve the tremendously innovative R&D and manufacturing businesses of the U.K. As you point out we (W&R) do not do scientific R&D ourselves but we do see the benefit to none UK companies we represent here in Europe, of their greater relative investment in protecting innovation. Meanwhile UK manufacturers largely cling to a belief that there is no point seeking protection but instead merely rely on the 6 month or so springboard effect they have of introducing new technology and creating a new market before others follow in quickly on their heels.

“…I am hear…” I am sure you mean ‘here’.
“we see the benefit to ‘none’ UK companies” surely ‘many’? (do they see any such benefit?)
With two bad mistakes in three lines (and this from persons who make a living? expressing in words what we simple technologists and Engineers clearly cannot do for ourselves? ) I wonder whether ‘the tremendously innovative UK R&D and manufacturing businesses’ might be better advised to seek alternative assistance.

In 40 years of experimentation to demonstrate just how in-effective Patent agents are: I have yet fo find one that could put a technical idea or concept into words that mean the same to two patent agents (without a good arguement, of course paid for by their clients!) let alone the technologists who are supposed to follow their advice without question.

The former President of our professional body described patent agents thus: “leeches on the jugular of innovation.” I have never found any reason to question that analysis.
Mike B

“…cling to a belief that there is no point seeking protection but instead merely rely on the 6 month or so springboard effect”

I would suggest that for any patent agent to have fully ‘protected’ any idea within 6 months would be remarkable.

I suggest that sensible manufacturers (that is if our present leaders intend there to be any!) recognise that their money is much better spent actually doing the necessary R&D and trials/testing, etc: rather than the situation where 98% of all patent effort and expenditure benefits only the ‘agents’ NOT the inventor. Previous, as yet un-published by our reviewer, comments still apply.
Were they unsuitable or offensive?

“Karl Barnfather has enjoyed success before the Opposition Boards and Appeal Boards of the European Patent Office, revelling in the efficient, inquisitorial style of the proceedings,
That single sentence from Karl’s www bio, demonstrates my entire concerns about present patent (and indeed other litigation) practices. To me, there is something deeply improper and un-professional about a group -UK based patent agents and other lawyers- who knowingly continue with a ‘system’ -our adversarial one- that is demonstrable unfit for purpose. Alone in Europe the UK continues with this rubbish. It keeps lots of UK lawyers in work…(by definition almost twice as many as we need) and gives negligible support to what is surely the most important element in the ‘equation’ -the inventive genius with which (according to Karl) many in our Nation have been blessed. The very seed-corn of any future advance in our economic harvest. Just for the record: our transatlantic cousins accept that the most important element of the invention ‘process’ is recognition, by one’s peers (not some external party), of the innovation. Whilst working in the USA, in the late 60s and 70s, each week, usually on friday afternoon, my R&D colleagues and I would spend a few minutes reading and discussing each-other’s laboratory note-books: and then signing them off. That was the invention. Simple, effective and readily accepted by all, including the Court as demonstrating competence, skill, date of invention, prior art and so on.

I have used the analogy (and our Editor will correct me if that is a simile) of rotary (turbine) and reciprocating (piston) engines as demonstrating the advantages of inquisitorial as opposed to adversarial methods. The first is already ‘circular’- the second needs much mechanical activity to convert. Is that clear?

According to his bio…Karl enjoys ‘rugby’.
Next time he does so, perhaps he will take a minute to inspect the surface of the Gilbert rugby ball. It was my privilege to assist in developing this. And after doing suitable flow tests in the wind-tunnel at Manchester University (we followed Action Man and his parachute!) we made small but vital alterations to the overall shape. I hope Karl’s kicking and handling is better now: because the original leather ball (with its natural rubber ‘inner’) was often described, when wet, as ‘like playing with a brick’. As part of the development, we did actually review the patent(s) issued to Gilbert (who was at Webb Ellis’ time the boot-maker for Rugby School. Much of the ‘invention’ related to Gilbert’s idea that by ‘stiffening’ the rubber inner-tube at its ‘ends’: he believed he could ‘push’ the air in the ‘inner’ towards the end: maintaining the speroid shape. Not the case at all, but perhaps the study of aerodynamics and heat-engines was not then part of the training for cobblers.

Karl and his colleagues might enjoy a short piece recently sent to members of the Supreme Court.

“I did wonder whether some/all of their Lordships are Rugby fans: sad though it is, perhaps England’s early departure from World Cup contention need not be ‘all bad!”

I have noticed reports that the President is in favour of televising some cases. The ‘replay’ technology available to assist the rugby referee and the newly instituted penalty systems (sin-bin, red-card for gross, and with TV coverage easily spotted, misconduct) are very important in ensuring ‘justice’ upon the field. And as many lawyers do describe litigation as ‘ the game’ presumably Judges are similarly responsible for professional and decent conduct during play in Court: and need similar help.

Particularly I noted one ‘short-line-out’ where a penalty was given against one team for fielding more players that the other. Might that sanction be available to the Courts: to ensure that one ‘side’ did not ‘pack’ the Court to achieve advantage. Sadly, it does occur. (*)
My particular interest in rugby? (apart from playing such so long ago at school) I had the privilege of assisting in the re-design of the Gilbert ball in the late 80s/early 90s: both its shape (spheroid) and surface. Interestingly, Gilbert was the boot-maker at Rugby School: one might imagine the conversation the week after Webb Ellis ran with a ball for the first time! “Gilbert: there’s a good fellow: stop making boots and start making these funny-shaped balls.”

Those learned Lords who themselves played at the same era as mine, might recall that playing with the original leather ball (with its laced fastening) was, when it was wet, and conditions muddy and muggy, like playing with a brick! I was able to make several suggestions as to a new surface and inflation method. The idea for the surface we ‘stole’ (with their full approval) from work being done at the Rubber & Plastics Research Association on the flooring of showers for severly disabled people. I like to believe that handling and place-kicking have both improved greatly since my contribution.

I am aware that there is a member of the Supreme Court who almost certainly did not play rugby!
I do recall a comment in one of Lady Hale’s judgements to the effect that ‘had Parliament intended a particular situation to be relevant, it would have said so.’ I believe dear Lord Denning also made much of Parliament’s intentions as the guide to his approach. It might interest their Lordships to know that the central theme of my academic research (previously described) is highlighting the differences (*) between ‘what Parliament -and indeed the RSC- intended’ and what actually occurs. Both inside Court and in the cess-pits that far too many junior lawyers have created outside the door. Might I again refer to my previous comments about stiffer penalties for those laywers who misbehave. Mike Blamey”